The Evangelical Universalist Forum

A lutheran perspective

Evangelical Universalism
#1

Lutherans, at least those familiar with their churches theology, actually start with universalism being The Gospel. As Luther said: ‘Christ took away the sins of the world, therefore, he took away my sins.’ is an expression of that universalism. We are also careful not to make faith a work - which is what the Catholic Church accused us of after the Reformation. So we say things like: “He took away my sins whether I believe it or not.” We call that Objective Justification - Subjective Justification, on the other hand, is believing/confessing it.

So when we say: “A man is justified by faith.” We find agreement with mainstream evangelicals - but we mean something quite different, and, we think, more in line with Paul’s meaning: that a righteousness from God has been revealed - because it sure ain’t ours - faith or not.

Objective Justification is The Gospel and it is universal. God is not counting men’s sins against them because they HAVE BEEN taken away, not because they believe they have been taken away, but because they are GONE.

It is WE, not God, who lay those sins back on men - as we must. Our grace is not His Grace. We punish, we exclude, we imprison, and respect (fear) the power of men to do so - for ORDER here! But His kingdom is not of this world. We know that in our better moments, but sometimes fail to see the vast difference in how divine ORDER in His Kingdom is maintained - the harmony and peace of Love…add to that Honor and Loyalty - because it deserves it!

There has never been a society on the earth that has experienced THAT kind of Kingdom - yet some cannot resist forcing the ways of the inferior onto the divine…it is, after all, the only thing they know.

For example: before TV, drawing and quartering ‘heretics’ was great entertainment - so Thomas of Aquinas would say that the screams of the tortured will be heard in heaven but that it would sound like music. Apparently, God sat Thomas down one day because he later admitted it was all a pile of crap, well, straw. But that hasn’t stopped others from longing for the album to come out.

Justification and Sanctification
#2

Thoroughly enjoyed those thoughts RanRan as I have been earlier contemplating man’s realization of God and how we so confine Him.

Thanks for sharing that,

John

#3

I agree with the Objective/Subjective justification distinction per se; though I don’t think I quite agree with the notion of justification per se.

Still, an interesting and even helpful perspective article, Ran. Thanks! :smiley:

#4

Let me ask you then - will we ever be (or can we ever be) justified (declared righteous) of own accord in heaven or on earth?

#5

“Of our own accord”? Absolutely not.

Without our own cooperation, too, as responsible persons under God? Absolutely not.

Theologically, I don’t consider our own cooperation with God in any matter to be the same as the ontological superiority claim typically meant by phrases like ‘of our own accord’ (which in the end means setting ourselves, singularly or in some group, on par with the Trinity as the standard and source of ultimate morality) or ‘of ourselves’.

Put another way, ‘of our own accord’ tends to mean ‘apart from God’. Insofar as that was what you meant, I agree it is utterly impossible for us to be justified of our own accord.

I don’t consider cooperation with God, however, to mean the same as acting or achieving anything apart from God. And since I robustly affirm the ontological, including authoritative, superiority of God, neither do I consider our cooperation with God to be even on par with the Son’s cooperation with the Father (or the Spirit, for that matter). Although, in Christ–and in submission to Christ–that relationship is the closest any derivative person can come to the kind of cooperation with God (in all three Persons) that all three Persons share with One Another.

Even so (as in 1 Cor 15 ) the Son shall present us to the Father with His own subordination, in parallel to how we all subordinate to the Son. (Psalm 2 has some things to say along that line as well.) As we submit to the Son, so in the Son do we submit in cooperation to the Father, participating thereby (and also in regard to the Spirit, too, Who brings the sonship into our hearts so that we cry “Abba! Father!”) in the hierarchy of mutual relationship among the Self-Existent corporate unity of God. (Which is most likely what the Eastern Orthodox have meant by deification of the human. We shall not be God, but we shall be as close as derivative creatures could ever be. We will not ever be Self-Existent in ourselves, but we can share by the grace of God in God’s own life, the zoe eonian.)

#6

That is how I see it.

#7

Excellent stuff, Jason. And I agree. But I’m mystified as to what it is you don’t agree with about the ‘notion of justification.’ It’s certainly scriptural.

#8

(Note: I wrote this comment before seeing Ran’s comment. I’ll have to get back to that tomorrow, maybe, at the office. Sorry. I don’t know that this will address his question about where we may be differing in our understanding of justification.)

Are we there yet?

(No.)

Are we there yet?!

(NO!)

:mrgreen:

One of the paradoxes of a relationship between the One Eternal God and any derivative creatures, is put pretty well by an old saying (I think I heard it from C. S. Lewis). God doesn’t only see us how we are, but also how we will be; and He doesn’t only see us how we will be, but also how we are.

Same goes for the kingdom. Already, but not yet. That’s why there is some solid scriptural testimony both ways. Which then throws commentators for a loop, because they’re expecting the kingdom to be one or the other not both. Not incidentally, the more liberal/sceptical commentators have had problematic gunfights with each other, and against more conservative belief–which is possibly more important to them :mrgreen: – trying to argue that Jesus was an eschatological prophet or else a non-eschatological wisdom sage. They tend to forget that the OT, too, went both ways; or, rather, they play the same source-redactional game along that line with the OT, too. Which Gospel ‘source’ was earlier and so more authentic?–the one that shows Jesus prophecying and preparing for an oncoming kingdom that He would initiate and rule in? Or the one that shows Jesus teaching people to live in the kingdom now, and ushering in the kingdom now (i.e. in His own day but also in ours, or at any day)?

(And then of course there are the commentators, usually also non-eschatological, who aren’t real happy about any kingdom authority language at all, and decide that the earliest and most authentic ‘sources’ preserved in the Gospels are ones where Jesus isn’t talking about His kingship at all, now or later!)

Theologically, though, as well as in a merely historical fashion (insofar as Jesus was appealing to and applying what we call the OT scriptures–which, regardless of any source-redaction theory, were certainly a combination of these ideas by Jesus’ day and long before it, too) it makes sense for Jesus to be talking about the kingdom of God in just this both/and fashion.

(Naturally, the commentators who most quickly and loudly and pervasively went the route of either/or source redaction theories, were the ones who didn’t believe in God after all, or else who didn’t think that God could be possibly interested in being a king per se. That was just primitive thinking, not modern 18th or 19th century thinking!–which surely must be better! :mrgreen: )

Anyway. Sorry for the digression. :slight_smile: I just thought I should add that ‘justification’ can be an ongoing process and also a top-down established reality. And also something accomplished at a particular point in history now past. Even at two different points of history past, considering that the relationship involves at least two people in corporate action–the connection or junction of that corporate action being rooted in God’s own eternal life and reality.

Which then gets more confusing in another way, when we’re expecting only a simple single action–yet the data indicates (arguably or obviously) more than one potential candidate for that action.

(Another related example: when was Jesus Christ begotten? There is scriptural testimony for more than one exact historical time or even event–and also testimony for some kind of ongoing or indistinct ‘timing’! So which one is right?–or how could they all be right? Any answer in any direction can only be thought of as ‘simple’ by flat ignoring the complications. :wink: )

#9

Jason.

I see justification as being a top-down established reality. ( Romans 3:22; Romans 4:25; Romans 5:1) Not sure what you mean by justification can be an ongoing process? Please explain.

#10

BA, I did not agree to ignore you or write you off. I WANT you to be the sharpest sword around in opposition to us. Which means I want you to engage in debate. You have to stop throwing barbs and running away. That’s sophistry and that’s what a pussy does. Gird up your loins and fight like a Christian - stand your ground and defend it by thoughtful answers back - not throwing scripture at the battle but your understanding - depth of Christian character is much more powerful than a quote from scripture - anyone can do that.

Every debater is a student FIRST. We are all students here. Every master/teacher is a continuing student. Are you? There is nothing demeaning about the label we apply to ourselves.

I want you to get tough - a warrior for your position - read, study the fathers, study theology, study the history of Christian thought, I want you to seriously try and beat me.

If your question to Jason is coming from a true inquiring heart - one student to another - then fine. If not, then I will believe the others about you as neither a student nor a teacher because you will have so shown to lack the qualities of both. Fair enough?

Be careful how you answer. Every word…

#11

OK Jason, both BA and I have the same question to ask of you. How is justification an ongoing process?

It doesn’t take much to be justified - a mustard seed of faith will do according to Christ. Does justification know degrees? Is one Christian more justified than another? Is there such a thing a ‘superior sinner’?

Justification seems to be a switch (both ontologically in the general, and a change of mind in the specific) rather than a process (an evolution).

Granted, one can grow in knowledge - but not in justification - one believes/confesses or one does not.

#12

*Paul tells us in *Romans 3:11, “There is NONE who seeks for God.” My belief is that justification, sanctification and resurrection which makes up our salvation, is ALL OF HIM and NONE OF US, even our faith in accepting Him (belief) is FROM HIM and NOT our own independent choice (THAT WOULD MAKE IT A WORK )

“NOT BY ‘WORKS’ LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST” ( Ephesians 2:9):

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD” (Ephesians 2:8);

“NONE CAN COME TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER WHO SENT ME DRAWS HIM” (John 6:44b);
“And He was saying, ‘For this reason I have said to you, that NO MAN CAN COME TO ME UNLESS IT HAS BEEN GRANTED HIM FROM THE FATHER’” (John 6:65);

“NO ONE CAN SAY ‘JESUS IS LORD,’ EXCEPT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT” (1 Corinthians 12:3b);

“GOD HAS ALLOTTED to each a measure of faith” (Romans 12:3b);

*Our allotted measure of faith is CONTROLLED BY HIM: *“I planted, Apollos watered, but GOD WAS CAUSING the growth. So then NEITHER THE ONE WHO PLANTS NOR THE ONE WHO WATERS IS ANYTHING, but GOD WHO CAUSES the growth.” (1 Corinthians 3:6-7);

HE is the Author and Perfecter of our faith - (Hebrews 12:2);

*The taking of credit or giving any kind of credit to man with regard to his salvation, whether it be justification, sanctification or resurrection, is surely an exercise in vanity.

Blessings,

John*

#13

I think Jason just has a misunderstanding there between Justification and Sanctification.

#14

Actually, I don’t mind BA’s question in the least (though at the same time I sure wouldn’t go out of my way at this point to answer in any detail. Or maybe to answer at all. The questioner I mean, not the question. :wink: )

I was actually hoping someone would bring up the distinction (in some theological schools) between justification and sanctification. Before I answer that, though, I want to hunt up some details I wrote last year for a fine, strong and thoughtful non-universalist opponent of my acquaintance, who I wish would join our community actually. (Maybe he has under a pseudonym, but if so I don’t know about it. And for sake of his request for privacy at the time I won’t say who it is, though his name would be familiar to many of you I think.)

Until then, keep in mind that I didn’t deny it was also a top-down action. Actually, I affirmed it! But there’s a reason why I wrote that intervening comment about a preponderance of already/not-yet theology in scripture (OT and NT both): to demonstrate generally that it’s there, that it has a wide (though also related) topical spread, and that this often leads to schools taking one or the other position and then dueling one another about which one is correct–when in fact both sides (or all three or four sides!) have good arguments and scriptural data on their side.

Anyway, while I’m hunting up that material on a comparison of justification and sanctification (and polishing it up for presentation), I think an important question for consideration is: what does justification most fundamentally mean?–or even (if applicable) what does it most fundamentally relate or connect to?

I know that when I started thinking about this (and without going into detail yet, I think I can definitely call it a ‘top-down’ reality :smiley: ), it made a huge consequential difference in how I understood justification–which before then I had only some vague ideas about as being, at best, some kind of useful legal fiction.

Hopefully I can find and post that other material pretty quickly though. :slight_smile: I would hate to have to re-compose it (though I’ll probably still do some editing on it for synching up better with the current context.)

#15

Jason.

you said: Anyway, while I’m hunting up that material on a comparison of justification and sanctification (and polishing it up for presentation), I think an important question for consideration is: what does justification most fundamentally mean?–or even (if applicable) what does it most fundamentally relate or connect to?

Born Again: Justification means that you have been declared not guilty or declared righteous… Just as you have never sinned. You now have the ability to stand in the presence of God as free from sin and condemnation as though there had never been any spiritual death within your spirit. ( Romans 5:1-2 )

Sanctification means to be set apart or to purify and made holy. When we are born again we are set apart from the world and made holy. Sanctification is the process of being made into the image of Christ.

#16

I think my main issue with the Lutheran/Reformed view on justification is the (I think erroneous) assumption that one cannot be said to be “justified” before God without his seeing them (either in their own character, or as an acquired legal status) as sinlessly perfect. This unjustified assumption (pardon the pun :mrgreen: ) has, I believe, led to what I see as the dual errors of both those who think it possible for us to attain, by our own will, a state of sinless perfection before we die, as well as those who think it necessary for the sinless character or merits of Christ to be “imputed” or forensically transferred to us, in order for us to be presently acceptable to God.

#17

The fundamental meaning is that it is a declaration of righteousness. Another status for human beings. It is ontological in nature. Human beings are now in Christ as they were in Adam. (Declared righteous, whereas, before, they were Declared sinners - with no recourse) This is all God’s doing. It is an irrevocable declaration - followed by evidence of that righteousness - the confession of Christ as their Lord.

Many refer to justification as a legal term - but that misses the fullness of it’s meaning. It’s ontological.
Justification, then, IS the irrevocable call (to new being) of God. Or, to put it another way, the declaration of new being for humanity.

Turning justification into a legal debate is a distraction, in my opinion. It’s a debate that has been carried on for centuries since the Reformation and is more about who is NOT justified and who should burn. A waste of time.

#18

Coming from a calvinistic background, as I do, I was taught that justification means that we are “declared righteous” because the righteousness (meaning ‘sinless perfection’) of Christ is imputed to us. That would be the ‘legal fiction’ interpretation. So, then, when God looks at us he sees the guiltlessness of Jesus. “Sanctification” (as I was taught) is the process by which we are actually made holy in this life, by various means, which is a process never completed until we die and are raised with an incorruptable body.

At this time, I do not believe that justification is the same as being reckoned “sinlessly perfect”–which is what I think Aaron is also saying. Justification, as I currently understand it, means that in God’s eyes we are “right,” we are in line with his ways, we are believing what He says. In the story of the pharisee and the tax collector, Jesus says that the tax collector went home justified before God because of his humility. The list people in Hebrews 11 were “justified” because they believed God.

I look forward to Jason’s comments on this, as I’m still working through this and don’t yet feel like I have a good understanding. I think it was George MacDonald that first made me realise something was wrong with the ‘legal fiction’ view.

Ranran, I think I might be able to go with what you are saying–but along the same lines as the subjection of all thing to Christ, as expressed in Hebrews 2:

Where it is said to be accomplished, and completely accomplished–yet (in apparent contradiction) we do not yet see it accomplished. (Perhaps this would be the concept Jason is talking about?)

Anyway, if that all comes out confused, it’s because I still am … :sunglasses: Having rejected the set of definitions that was handed to me, I have yet to become sure of any other understanding–but I’m ok with that. :wink:

Sonia

#19

That’s more a definition of ‘righteousness.’

‘You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.’

‘Died for’ turns out to be nothing less than the salvation of His fellow human beings.

Righteousness does not appear universal - to us! But from the divine perspective - it is universal! And irrevocably declared so and revealed to us to be true. Objective Justification is based on that truth. As all were in Adam, they are now ALL in Christ. Justification is universal in scope AND effectiveness. He died for ALL.

#20

Yeah, that’s how I see it. From my study of the word, dikaioo (to justify) means something like, “to show or declare as righteous or just.” That it does not (or need not) mean to “make righteous” seems evident from Luke 7:29, where we read that the people “justified God.” The people did not, of course, make God righteous or just; they simply declared, or acknowledged, him as such. Now, if we allow this verse to inform our understanding of dikaioo, then it becomes evident that justification (in this case, at least) cannot involve the idea of righteousness being “infused” into one’s being, resulting in a change in one’s character or condition (as is believed by the Eastern Orthodox). But neither can it carry the Reformed idea of a “foreign righteousness” being forensically transferred or “imputed” to another (resulting in a change in their legal position). For God was already righteous/just in his character; Luke’s telling us that the people “justified God” can only mean that they simply recognized and acknowledged what was already true of him. And this is essentially how I understand “justification.” It is God’s acknowledgment (and thus his approval) of those who have, by faith, become righteous. In this sense, justification doesn’t refer to how people become righteous, or even what it means to be righteous. It simply conveys the fact that those who are righteous have been declared/acknowledged to be such.

For the record, I do see Christ’s death as being the divine pledge and guarantee that all people will ultimately be made righteous, and will consequently be “justified” by God. So in a proleptic sense, I see everyone’s justification as an already realized fact. When I contemplate the cross, I see and rejoice in the full victory over sin that Christ secured when he offered himself up to God as a sin-offering on behalf of the world (“God WAS in Christ reconciling the world to himself”; the “peace” of universal reconciliation has already been made and is an established fact). But as Sonia pointed out, this universal victory - this subjection of all people to Christ - has not yet been subjectively realized in the lives of most people; only few have and will continue to respond to the appeal to “be reconciled to God!” - though their reconciliation is certain to take place. Until then, we must live in the tension of the “already-but-not-yet.”